USPTO Patents Application 09917440

REMARKS

Claims remaining in the present application are Claims 1-12. Claim 1 has been
amended. No Claims have been canceled. No new matter has been added as a result
of these amendments.

CLAIM REJECTIONS
35 U.S.C. §102

In paragraph 3, Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §1 02(b) as
being anticipated by USPN 6,028,324 by Su et al. (referred to hereinafter as "Su").
Claim 1 has been amended to more distinctly claim an embodiment of the present
invention to which Applicants are entitled. It is respectfully submitted that Claims 1-3 and
7-9 are neither taught nor suggested by Su.

Amended independent Claim 1 recites:

a first isolation oxide and a second isolation oxide disposed over the N doped
substrate, wherein the first isolation oxide and the second isolation oxide are separated
by the gate oxide layer;

an N+ doped gate disposed over at least one portion of the first isolation oxide,
the gate oxide, and the second isolation oxide, a first isolation oxide and a second isolation
oxide disposed over the N doped substrate.

The cited reference fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations as discussed

below.

The Office Actions states,

Figure 2 illustrates a semiconductor device having a doped polysilicon gate (26)
disposed over a first and second isolation oxide (22) and a gate oxide 24. This
structure is over a n-type substrate (20).

For the sake of argument, it shall be assumed that the Office Action intends to argue that
the N+ doped gate recited by Claim 1 is analogous to Su's polysilicon capacitor plates
26, the first and second isolation oxides recited by Claim 1 are analogous to Su's field
oxide 22, and the gate oxide recited by Claim 1 is analogous to Su's gate oxide 24.

Serial No. 09/917,440
Examiner: Quinto, Kevin V.

-5-

Art Unit 2826
G0188

However, Su discloses a single field oxide 22 in FIG. 2 and at Col. 4 line 15
rather than a first and second isolation oxide as recited in Claim 1 . Further, referring to
Su's FIG. 2, Su's polysilicon capacitor 26 is not over at least one portion of a first portion
of Su's field oxide 22, Su's gate oxide 24, and Su's second field oxide 22. In fact, as
already explained, Su doesn't even have a first and second field oxide 22.

For at least the reasons given in the foregoing rationale, the limitations of Claim 1
are neither taught nor suggested by Su. As such, allowance of Claim 1 is respectfully
solicited.

Claims 2 and 3 depend on Claim 1 , which is believed to be allowable for the
foregoing rationale. As such, it is respectfully asserted that the rejections of Claims 2
and 3 have been overcome and their allowance is earnestly solicited.

The cited reference fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations of Claim 7 for
similar reasons that the cited reference fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations of
Claim 1 . As such, allowance of Claim 7 is respectfully solicited.

Claims 8 and 9 depend on Claim 7, which is believed to be allowable for the
foregoing rationale. As such, it is respectfully asserted that the rejections of Claims 8
and 9 have been overcome and their allowance is earnestly solicited.

CLAIM REJECTIONS
35 U.S.C. §102

In paragraph 5, Claims 4-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §1 02(b) as
being anticipated by Su. The rejection is respectfully traversed. It is respectfully
submitted that Claims 4-6 and 10-12 are neither taught nor suggested by Su.

Serial No. 09/917,440
Examiner: Quinto, Kevin V.

-6-

Art Unit 2826
G0188

Independent Claim 4 recites:

a first isolation oxide and a second isolation oxide disposed over the P
doped substrate;

a P+ doped gate disposed over at least one portion of the first isolation
oxide, the gate oxide, and the second isolation oxide.

The Office Actions states,

Figure 2 illustrates a semiconductor device having a doped polysilicon gate (26)
disposed over a first and second isolation oxide (22) and a gate oxide 24. This
structure is over a p-type substrate (20).

For the sake of argument, it shall be assumed that the Office Action intends to argue that
the P+ doped gate recited by Claim 4 is analogous to Su's polysilicon capacitor plates
26, the first and second isolation oxides recited by Claim 4 are analogous to Su's field
oxide 22, and the gate oxide recited by Claim 4 is analogous to Su's gate oxide 24.

However, Su discloses a single field oxide 22 in FIG. 2 and at Col. 4 line 1 5
rather than a first and second isolation oxide as recited in Claim 4. Further, referring to
Su's FIG. 2, Su's polysilicon capacitor 26 is not over at least one portion of a first portion
of Su's field oxide 22, Su's gate oxide 24, and Su's second field oxide 22. In fact, as
already explained, Su doesn't even have a first and second field oxide 22.

For at least the reasons given in the foregoing rationale, the limitations of Claim 4
are neither taught nor suggested by Su. As such, allowance of Claim 4 is respectfully
solicited.

Claims 5 and 6 depend on Claim 4, which is believed to be allowable for the
foregoing rationale. As such, it is respectfully asserted that the rejections of Claims 5
and 6 have been overcome and their allowance is earnestly solicited.

Independent Claim 10 recites:

a first isolation oxide and a second isolation oxide disposed over the
substrate;

Serial No. 09/917,440
Examiner: Quinto, Kevin V.

-7-

Art Unit 2826
G0188

a P+ doped gate disposed over the first isolation oxide, the gate oxide, and
the second isolation oxide, wherein the semiconductor capacitor structure is used to
characterize polysilicon gate depletion corresponding to a semiconductor process.

The cited reference fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations of Claim 10 for
similar reasons that the cited reference fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations of
Claim 4. As such, allowance of Claim 1 0 is respectfully solicited.

Claims 1 1 and 12 depend on Claim 10, which is believed to be allowable for
the foregoing rationale. As such, it is respectfully asserted that the rejections of Claims
1 1 and 12 have been overcome and their allowance is earnestly solicited.

In light of the above listed amendments and remarks, reconsideration of the
rejected Claims is requested. Based on the amendments and arguments presented
above, it is respectfully submitted that Claims 1-29 overcome the rejections of record.
Therefore, allowance of Claims 1-29 is earnestly solicited.

Should the Examiner have a question regarding the instant response, the
Applicant invites the Examiner to contact the Applicant's undersigned representative at
the below listed telephone number.

CONCLUSION

Respectfully submitted,
WAGNER, MURABITO & HAO LLP

Cheryl tf. Eichstaedt
Registration No. 50,761

Telephone:

Address:

WAGNER, MURABITO & HAO LLP
Two North Market Street
Third Floor

San Jose, California 951 13
(408) 938-9060 Voice
(408) 938-9069 Facsimile

Serial No. 09/917,440
Examiner: Quinto, Kevin V.

-8-

Art Unit 2826
G0188